Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 457 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#111

Post by larkeith »

Theodores wrote: post #62
DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #2

A swipe against excessive civil forfeitures succeeds. These aggressive actions require citizens to forfeit property far in excess of any harm committed. In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. We have laws to punish illegal behavior, but it’s not right that all your property get snatched up too. The most egregious of these cases often involve no due process at…

> In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroin dealers deserve to be fully hung, drawn and quartered, their head placed on a spike to be pecked at by the crows. Others might think that 'it was just a bit of dope, why should he have to forfeit anything for that?'. The car is potentially proceeds of crime i…

> The car is potentially proceeds of crime

The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means.

Far more importantly, the entire question is irrelevant: we have standardized maximum fines and the burden of proof for very good reasons. Civil forfeiture skips both, making a mockery of the justice system for profit.

Those who believe current punishments for a given crime insufficient should seek to alter the law, whereas exorbitant forfeiture devalues the entire purpose - it serves neither as effective discouragement (being utterly arbitrary and unrelated to criminal magnitude) nor to rehabilitate (rather, the reverse, as departing inmates' tendencies to return will only be exacerbated by forfeiture-induced poverty).

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#112

Post by sjjshvuiajhz »

DuskStar wrote: post #104
Tomte wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody. Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".

So, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying. Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing.…

In the context of this particular case, it sounds like the ruling by the majority protects non-citizens from having their property taken by the police, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence would not.

In my opinion, not having your property taken unfairly by the police is more of a basic right everyone should enjoy, rather than a special right afforded to citizens like voting.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#113

Post by shkkmo »

Splendor wrote: post #12

This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute an "excessive" fine?

TLDR;

The trial court ruled that seizing the Land Rover constituted an excessive fine under the 8th ammendment, so was not protected.

The state supreme court ruled that the US supreme court had never said that the 8th amendment applies to state governments.

The US supreme court just said "Ok, now it does"

Now state trial court judges can use the 8th amendment to deny civil forfeiture attempts. It also now serves as a basis to appeal civil forfeiture rulings.

While this seems like a positive ruling, all it does is extend the rules that cover the federal government to the states. Given the abuses of the federal governement, I don't see much hope for this ruling changing anything.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#114

Post by lososos »

Link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Based on one very quick reading of the case, my understanding is:

1. Defendant ("D") purchased a $42,000 Land Rover using funds from a life estate policy covering the life of his now-deceased father.

2. D sells $225 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Ends up paying ~$1200 in fines, one year on house arrest, 5 years probation

3. Max penalty in Indiana for his crimes is $10,000

4. Cops seize his Land Rover, arguing it was used in the performance of selling heroin.

5. He sues the State of Indiana, arguing that the seizure is an excessive fine.

6. Trial Court and Appellate Court rule in D's favor. Indiana Supreme Court reverses. D appeals to US Supreme Court.

7. Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment protects against excessive fines, and that because the rule against excessive fines is part of our national history and tradition, the 14th Amendment makes that part of the 8th amendment apply to the states. Further, excessive fines can be used for silencing political enemies and income generation, rather than being a legitimate part of the process of "retribution and rehabilitation" that we want the justice system to provide. When a State's actions benefit the State, the Court will carefully scrutinize those actions.

8. State of Indiana tried to argue that while "excessive fines" are part of the 8th amendment, it does not apply specifically to civil in rem forfeitures (aka property seizure).

Supreme Court cites a case clarifying the way the analysis is done--only the broad category of "excessive fines" is reviewed, rather than picking out very specific instances of fines, like property seizure.

9. This was a unanimous decision. Technically it was 7-0 with 2 concurring opinions. The two concurrences were Gorsuch and Thomas, who both agreed with the outcome, but said that a different part of the 14th amendment (privileges and immunities) is what should be used, rather than what the other 7 relied on (the due process clause).

10. The case was remanded to Indiana Courts for rulings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court answered only whether excessive fines, barred to the US government by the 8th amendment, also applied to the States through the 14th amendment. It did not answer whether the seizure of the Land Rover was actually excessive. Indiana will (get a chance) to decide that.

Based on my reading, it appears that the avenue for property seizure is based upon fines defined by statute. To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime. If they are convicted of a crime, the seizure must not constitute an excessive fine. Is this how others interpreted the ruling?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#116

Post by newen »

eco wrote: post #87
colmmacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means aliens are afforded the same protections as citizens.

>aliens

I really hate that usage of the word.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

ls612 wrote: post #14
whatshisface wrote: post #6

> Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”…

That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…

> Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome.

It's the same outcome in this case, but it is rather different in the broader effect; not all people subject to punishment by states are citizens of the US.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#118

Post by dsfyu404ed »

tarjm wrote: post #106
TomMckenny wrote: post #69

>The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states >...the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states. Does anyone know which rights people assume they have but don't because the protection only applies on the federal level?

The 3rd (quartering of soldiers) and 7th (jury trial for civil cases) Amendments have not been incorporated at all, as well as parts of the 5th (Grand Jury indictment) and 6th (jury from the location of the crime). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

It's probably a good thing that the 6th isn't incorporated since in low profile cases the prosecution does the trial locally and in high profile cases they taint the jury pool by repeating their side of the story day after day in the media.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#119

Post by naasking »

burtonator wrote: post #26

What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual case law. This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have a resolution. This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it out and ge…

> This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution

Problems caused by tech often have tech solutions as well. I think it's a mistake to assume the justice system is the best place to address "evil". More evil and injustice is addressed by individuals, innovation and grass roots movements than the courts.

Post reply on HN